Biochemistry PDQ

In the first and second of these works, Galen thoroughly refutes the statements of his predecessor, Erasistratus, point by point, and firmly establishes his own views on the importance of venesection. We are reminded here of the uncompromising thoroughness of Sir William Harvey in De Moto Cordis (1628). Galen, however, lacks Harvey's characteristic ability to incorporate simple yet decisive experiments into his arguments. He also lacks Sydenham's gift of description. On the whole, the Galenic texts have a tendency to be rather tiresome and repetitive. Perhaps, in the case of Galen's first work, this repetitiveness is understandable, as he states, "[it] was composed in a manner not befitting a book but rather a lecture room ... and having many deficiencies compared with the ideal." Subsequent chapters in Galen On Bloodletting deal with the development of Galen's views on venesection, particularly the maturation of his views following his first work. There is also an interesting section on the dating of Galen's second work on venesection. In addition, there are several chapters dealing with the treatment of venesection in the Hippocratic Corpus and in the writings of Celsus, Antyllus, and others. Later in the book, the author attempts to clarify possible inconsistencies between Galenic vascular anatomy and his practice of bloodletting at certain selected veins. Unfortunately, diagrams of Hippocratic and Galenic concepts of venous anatomy are lacking. For the most part, Galen On Bloodletting is an extremely thorough treatment of Galen's views on bloodletting. The author clearly has spent considerable time examining previous translations of Galen's works on venesection, and the reader is easily lulled into a feeling that he is being guided through the Galenic works by a master. At times, however, Dr. Brain may be a trifle repetitive, restating points which have been clearly established in earlier chapters. This volume may easily be read by both the classicist and the medical practitioner. I would strongly recommend it to anyone with an interest in the history of ideas.